Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

Re: RCP Electoral Map Thread

Someone should get rid of this jerk off. This is the most disgraceful
thing said in the campaign. Rush would be crucified by every paper
and TV station in the country for saying something like this.

This is what they've given us - fear via the race card. They played it
in 08 and this year. McCain was scared to death to link OBY with
Jeremiah Wrong for fear of being called a racist.

I remember during the 60s when they burned the cities down from
Watts to Bmore. North Ave and Penn Ave were burned to the ground.

Afterwards in school I asked the blacks how could you burn down your
own neighborhoods? I was just trying to understand them.
They said we're coming out to your neighborhood the next time.
I said come on out.

I always got along with them, even broke up a fight with 2 white
guys beating on a black. I was one of the biggest guys in the school and
wrestled in the unlimited weight class at 175 lbs (no body fat) in the 10th grade.
I beat a senior by just falling on him and got promoted to the varsity.

If OBY wins, I cant wait for the next campaign. At least there won't
be this:

Re: RCP Electoral Map Thread

I don't. I'm trying to make the point that these polls mean nothing right now.

However, sending Bill Clinton to Pennsylvania all day? That means more than any poll out there. THAT tells me someone in the Obama camp sees Romney in a position they don't want him to be in.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

Hears what I take from this and why I have no idea what's really going on.

IN every state listed as a "swing state" it's now even or within the margin of error. IF obama won it by 16, 13, or 10 it's now even. Now if he won it by 3, 2 4, or 6 it's still a toss up.

That just doesn't make sense, how does someone lose 14 or 15 points in two or three states but only 2 or none (ohio) in others.

The only thing I can think of is, close elections mean big business and no one really knows what's going on sense most polls are done by landlines and no one has a landline and those who do don't answer their phones.

This election could be a toss up or a landslide in either direction....

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin

Re: RCP Electoral Map Thread

Based on all the recent swing state polls (in particular Ohio), this election appears to be Obama's to lose at this point. When even Gallup and Rasmussen start changing their national/swingstate polls from outside margin of error Romney leads to ties, you know the momentum has clearly shifted Obama's way. The only thing romney supporters can hope for is that the reduced early voting days/hours that has taken place in Ohio and Florida leads to less democrats voting and way more republicans voting on election day to tip it Romney's way...for folks that are into complex number crunching, Sam Wang from the Princeton Election Consortium, who accurately got 2008 and 2010 results down has Obama at 98%. Nate Silver, also accurate in 2008 and 2010 has Obama at over 85%. Their sites go into great detail how they arrive at those numbers so go there, read up, and then hit them up if you got questions/concerns. Sam has mentioned that he will eat bugs and show the footage if he's wrong so take that for what it's worth haha

Re: RCP Electoral Map Thread

Originally Posted by kojo

Based on all the recent swing state polls (in particular Ohio), this election appears to be Obama's to lose at this point. When even Gallup and Rasmussen start changing their national/swingstate polls from outside margin of error Romney leads to ties, you know the momentum has clearly shifted Obama's way. The only thing romney supporters can hope for is that the reduced early voting days/hours that has taken place in Ohio and Florida leads to less democrats voting and way more republicans voting on election day to tip it Romney's way...for folks that are into complex number crunching, Sam Wang from the Princeton Election Consortium, who accurately got 2008 and 2010 results down has Obama at 98%. Nate Silver, also accurate in 2008 and 2010 has Obama at over 85%. Their sites go into great detail how they arrive at those numbers so go there, read up, and then hit them up if you got questions/concerns. Sam has mentioned that he will eat bugs and show the footage if he's wrong so take that for what it's worth haha

Both of them just analyze poll results. The concerns people have cannot be addressed by them because the concerns are about the data they are analyzing (and its accuracy) not their actual analyses. They both start with the assumption that the polls are showing them the actual electorate.

The fact is, with early voting expansion, cell phones, Caller ID, an extra partisan electorate, and more polling being done by more pollsters with more methodologies, it is not a given that these polls can be relied on to the extent they are being relied on.

That said, the extra poll numbers combined with averaging them should even out the anomalous, bad apples, but it wouldn't catch a systematic failure/asumption that exists throughout the majority of the polls. Obviously, whether there is a systematic failure is clearly up for debate, and the burden of proof is on those claiming there is, and as of yet I have not heard great evidence, though I have heard some compelling speculation. We won't know until Tuesday.

Re: RCP Electoral Map Thread

Originally Posted by Haloti92

Both of them just analyze poll results. The concerns people have cannot be addressed by them because the concerns are about the data they are analyzing (and its accuracy) not their actual analyses. They both start with the assumption that the polls are showing them the actual electorate.

The fact is, with early voting expansion, cell phones, Caller ID, an extra partisan electorate, and more polling being done by more pollsters with more methodologies, it is not a given that these polls can be relied on to the extent they are being relied on.

That said, the extra poll numbers combined with averaging them should even out the anomalous, bad apples, but it wouldn't catch a systematic failure/asumption that exists throughout the majority of the polls. Obviously, whether there is a systematic failure is clearly up for debate, and the burden of proof is on those claiming there is, and as of yet I have not heard great evidence, though I have heard some compelling speculation. We won't know until Tuesday.

Re: RCP Electoral Map Thread

Originally Posted by Haloti92

Both of them just analyze poll results. The concerns people have cannot be addressed by them because the concerns are about the data they are analyzing (and its accuracy) not their actual analyses. They both start with the assumption that the polls are showing them the actual electorate.

The fact is, with early voting expansion, cell phones, Caller ID, an extra partisan electorate, and more polling being done by more pollsters with more methodologies, it is not a given that these polls can be relied on to the extent they are being relied on.

That said, the extra poll numbers combined with averaging them should even out the anomalous, bad apples, but it wouldn't catch a systematic failure/asumption that exists throughout the majority of the polls. Obviously, whether there is a systematic failure is clearly up for debate, and the burden of proof is on those claiming there is, and as of yet I have not heard great evidence, though I have heard some compelling speculation. We won't know until Tuesday.

Again, this is why I said to visit their site and read their posts...they discuss these very points you bring up (see Nate's article on anti Romney poll bias). Again, both these guys have VERY accurate track records on elections and 2012 should be no different. It's one thing if partisan hacks like Michael Moore, Rachel Maddow, or Bill Maher are throwing these sort of #s around, but these guys make a reputation on being objective and accurate. If Obama was the one that was consistently 1-3 points behind Romney in Ohio polls, then the numbers would be swinging the other way Romney, that's how important that state is for both candidates...but believe what you wish. Nothings a sure thing so we'll see who is right on Tuesday.

Re: RCP Electoral Map Thread

TEAM O IS WORRIED ABOUT PENN. FROM FREEPERS:

I didn't think PA was really a possibility until last couple days. Polls are looking good. However some real clues lie in the size of the crowd Romney pulled in a district Obama won with 53% in 2008. Additionally Clinton going there for 4 stops tomorrow. That is important for two poins. Dems worried. And the bigger point (my editorial belief) they know Obama isn't popular but PA liked Clinton, so they are sending him to try to pull the indy's and Dem's they are losing! The momentum is there PA people just get out and vote

Re: RCP Electoral Map Thread

Originally Posted by kojo

Again, this is why I said to visit their site and read their posts...they discuss these very points you bring up (see Nate's article on anti Romney poll bias). Again, both these guys have VERY accurate track records on elections and 2012 should be no different. It's one thing if partisan hacks like Michael Moore, Rachel Maddow, or Bill Maher are throwing these sort of #s around, but these guys make a reputation on being objective and accurate. If Obama was the one that was consistently 1-3 points behind Romney in Ohio polls, then the numbers would be swinging the other way Romney, that's how important that state is for both candidates...but believe what you wish. Nothings a sure thing so we'll see who is right on Tuesday.

I have read what they say, but it doesn't answer the questions. It amounts to: we have no reason to think these polls are any less accurate than 4 years ago (or 8 years ago, etc). But that is exactly the issue. If something is special about this election, and one could argue that these elections are so rare as to make every one special in some way, then the polls may be missing something (as it relates to the electorate vs who they are sampling) which would, in turn, make Silver's and Wang's conclusions erroneous. Their conclusions wouldn't be erroneous due to their math, but merely the data sets they were using (being given by pollsters).

Your constant mention of their VERY accurate track records, besides being somewhat meaningless in the sense that you are only talking about 2 elections (one of which was a blowout that many people predicted, and which Silver was fed more accurate internal polls from the Obama campaign) which is a nearly non-existent sample size, is also a textbook fallacy.

Yes, if Romney were ahead in the polls by the same numbers Obama is then, yes, Wang and Silver would have mirror image predications (most likely, Silver does have some subjectivity in his methodology that might be affected by his bias, but if so, is fairly slight). This is exactly what I am saying. They are analyzing the polls. The issue is not with their math, it is with the polls they are using. That is if an issue exists at all, and it might not.

It has nothing to do with what to "believe," it has to do with what is true.

It is an absolute fact that these polls could be making universal assumptions that are incorrect that lead them to produce biased results. For example they all weight by demographics, and choosing to assume the electorate will be 74% white vs 76% white is enough to move their poll results 2 points. Same goes with assumptions about women vs men, Hispanics, blacks, ages 18-29, ages 65+, etc etc. Every poll weights their results to fit an assumed electorate. Normally these electorates change slowly and in semi-predictable ways, but because the change between 2004 and 2008 was so huge, it is a legitimate question as to whether the trend (of change) continues, whether the electorate remains the same (as 2008), or even possibly goes back to something between 2004 and 2008 (because Obama hype is less and the groups that turned out in 2008 in proportions larger than usual will actually turn out less this time). There is also the very real issue about early voting affecting the likely voting screens, which has been mentioned on this thread. The point is, the polls are by no means factual; they are a mix of science and art, and this year the art may make up a larger portion than normal due to very rare election circumstances.

We will indeed find out Tuesday. And frankly I tend to believe that the polls will likely be somewhat accurate. I do think Romney will win Virginia (contrary to Silver's prediction) and Florida. But as for Ohio or another, I wouldn't bet a lot on it, myself. Maybe Colorado or New Hampshire, which won't matter without Ohio. I think Pennsylvania is very unlikely and states like Michigan/Minnesota, lol, have 0% chance (literally 0%).

Re: RCP Electoral Map Thread

Fallacy? Well do YOU believe there is something different about this election or not (the vast polls all being fundamentally off)?What exactly did he say in that article here that doesn't jive with you?

Re: RCP Electoral Map Thread

Fallacy? Well do YOU believe there is something different about this election or not (the vast polls all being fundamentally off)?What exactly did he say in that article here that doesn't jive with you?

I am not sure what you think "doesn't jive" with what I said. I told you I already read Silver's take, in fact I described exactly what it says. I am not sure what you have a problem with here? Silver admits that he will be wrong if the polls are wrong, which is what I said. He says that the odds of the polls being wrong are the odds he gives Romney of winning, which I already agreed with. He says that he is basing the odds the polls are wrong off of historical poll data and results.

But this last step is the whole ball of wax. How many pollsters were there in 1976 vs today (Silver uses polls from 1968 on)? How many cell phones? Caller ID? Month or more long early voting windows that distort likely voter samples? African-American incumbents? This much partisanship? Blogs and Twitter? As much media bias? Elections 2 years after the biggest reversal the House has seen? Elections after an unpopular healthcare law was passed? The point is, these pollsters are in uncharted territory.

And frankly I don't see how the two to three pollsters from 1972 that called on rotary phones during the evening news (shown on the three broadcast TV channels at the time) and their results should even enter the equation when trying to judge the accuracy of 2012 polling. Obviously there are differences in every election so pollsters do not need exact duplicate elections in order to be somewhat accurate. But there are potentially many more significant pitfalls around in this election in terms of trying to accurately gauge the electorate and how it will turn out and vote.

And it isn't just wishful thinking about the polls being biased against Romney. There is anecdotal evidence and common sense on the side that things may not be as they seem according to the polls. The polls say the electorate will be similar to 2008. On the face of it, 2008 was a perfect storm for Democrats. Personable, hyped, fawned-over, African-American running against an old "moderate" Republican who barely was supported by his party, after a massive financial collapse that occurred on an unpopular Republicans "watch." Now we have the same guy but without the same fawning, a very dubious 4-year record, after a groundswell midterm that thoroughly repudiated the guys agenda vs. a Republican who is more electable than the last guy, even if not close to a great candidate. Now, do you think that the support and enthusiasm and turnout of both sides will mirror 2008? It is an honest question, because much of the polling indicates that this will in fact be the case.

Re: RCP Electoral Map Thread

were on the same page here. Where my response came from was in your mentioning about demographics and polls using 2008 info. In my opinion, Nate addressed that below, more specifically the bolded part:

Polling is a difficult enterprise nowadays. Some estimate that only about 10 percent of voters respond even to the best surveys, and the polls that take shortcuts pay for it with lower-still response rates, perhaps no better than 2 to 5 percent. The pollsters are making a leap of faith that the 10 percent of voters they can get on the phone and get to agree to participate are representative of the entire population. The polling was largely quite accurate in 2004, 2008 and 2010, but there is no guarantee that this streak will continue. Most of the “house effects” that you see introduced in the polls — the tendency of certain polling firms to show results that are consistently more favorable for either the Democrat or the Republican — reflect the different assumptions that pollsters make about how to get a truly representative sample and how to separate out the people who will really vote from ones who say they will, but won’t.

But many of the pollsters are likely to make similar assumptions about how to measure the voter universe accurately. This introduces the possibility that most of the pollsters could err on one or another side — whether in Mr. Obama’s direction, or Mr. Romney’s. In a statistical sense, we would call this bias: that the polls are not taking an accurate sample of the voter population. If there is such a bias, furthermore, it is likely to be correlated across different states, especially if they are demographically similar. If either of the candidates beats his polls in Wisconsin, he is also likely to do so in Minnesota.

The FiveThirtyEight forecast accounts for this possibility. Its estimates of the uncertainty in the race are based on how accurate the polls have been under real-world conditions since 1968, and not the idealized assumption that random sampling error alone accounts for entire reason for doubt.

Re: RCP Electoral Map Thread

Originally Posted by kojo

were on the same page here. Where my response came from was in your mentioning about demographics and polls using 2008 info. In my opinion, Nate addressed that below, more specifically the bolded part:

Polling is a difficult enterprise nowadays. Some estimate that only about 10 percent of voters respond even to the best surveys, and the polls that take shortcuts pay for it with lower-still response rates, perhaps no better than 2 to 5 percent. The pollsters are making a leap of faith that the 10 percent of voters they can get on the phone and get to agree to participate are representative of the entire population. The polling was largely quite accurate in 2004, 2008 and 2010, but there is no guarantee that this streak will continue. Most of the “house effects” that you see introduced in the polls — the tendency of certain polling firms to show results that are consistently more favorable for either the Democrat or the Republican — reflect the different assumptions that pollsters make about how to get a truly representative sample and how to separate out the people who will really vote from ones who say they will, but won’t.

But many of the pollsters are likely to make similar assumptions about how to measure the voter universe accurately. This introduces the possibility that most of the pollsters could err on one or another side — whether in Mr. Obama’s direction, or Mr. Romney’s. In a statistical sense, we would call this bias: that the polls are not taking an accurate sample of the voter population. If there is such a bias, furthermore, it is likely to be correlated across different states, especially if they are demographically similar. If either of the candidates beats his polls in Wisconsin, he is also likely to do so in Minnesota.

The FiveThirtyEight forecast accounts for this possibility. Its estimates of the uncertainty in the race are based on how accurate the polls have been under real-world conditions since 1968, and not the idealized assumption that random sampling error alone accounts for entire reason for doubt.

Yeah, I don't think we were ever on completely different pages, but again, that bold part doesn't tell us anything meaningful. He says he "accounts for" the possibility that the polls are off by looking at how much they have been off in the past. But the distant past is only marginally meaningful at best, imo, and meaningless at worst, imo. The recent past is another matter but then we have the problem of insignificant sample sizes, probably 2000, 2004, 2008 only, and 2000 had the late-DUI effect which Silver just ignores. And 2008 had the unprecedented "perfect" storm for Democrats. Like I said, I don't think the way Silver says he "accounts for" the possibility of the polls being off means much in terms of their actual chances of being off.

I would much prefer some kind of rationale that specifically addresses (in terms of reasoning, i.e. why and how) the discrepancy between the tight national polls, the almost even party-ID when polled specifically, and the less-tight battleground states, and uneven party-IDs being found in these states.

For example the most recent PPP polls for Ohio and Virginia that came out today. Shows sample of D+8 in Ohio; when 2004 was R+5 and 2008 was D+8. And it gives Obama a 5 point lead. Then there is the Virginia poll which shows sample of D+5; when 2004 was R+4 and 2008 was D+6. And gives Obama a 4 point lead. If you split the difference between the two turnouts, Romney is ahead in both polls. If it is 2004 turnout (which due to demographics is fairly unlikely, imo) then Romney wins by several points.

To me, those polls and their results seem extremely unlikely, yet there they are, and there they get put into Silver and Wang's models along with many like them. Could they be dead on? Sure. Do they seem strange to me in terms of a common sense comparison of the situations at election time of 2004, 2008 and now? Yes, to me, they do, even if they are eventually proven to have been accurate.

That might be the best exchange this forum has seen in quite some time. Kudos!

By the way, Obama pulls back even in Gallups latest.

WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.